Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    December 4, 2013 2:00pm-2:31pm PST

2:00 pm
when you go to the topping section but you're saying even though lower portion - >> the directorer tone. >> so it and show up whatsoever a so - >> you see that up there. >> to i see it up at the top. if this goes approved as is now i want that marked in the lower section to have it darker >> what's showing on the screen is the contrast what is higher than the rendering. >> we have that. commissioner hyland >> i was going to say in all reporter with commissioner hyland. i think because i don't like something doesn't mean in 20 years from now i won't but my opinion is it might happen.
2:01 pm
(laughter) >> i don't think we're making it two vanilla. i propose a motion to accept the staff recommendations. second. >> okay commissioners there is a motion and second to approve with conditions on that motion. commissioner hyland. commissioner johnck. commissioner johns. commissioner matsuda. commissioner pearlman and president hasz so moved, commissioners, that motion passes 6 to one with commissioner pearlman voting against it. commissioners if there's nothing further we'll move on to the next item at the 101 polk street request for review and comments >> good afternoon, commissioners with the department staff. the item before you is a request
2:02 pm
by the united states department of housing and urban development or hud to participate in reviewing the proposed 13 steroids residential property under the historic presentation act. this is physically hud has requested review and comments on the documents for the 101 review which review and evaluate the property in the area of the a t e of the under taking. the subject project site is adjacent to the historic district which is the national historic landmark district is listed in the national register and it is a designated district of the article code. it is the merging of the vacant lots currently louis used to
2:03 pm
construct the 13 units with one hundred 60 dwelling units of which 189 are affordable. a proposed project and it's potential impact on the resources where it was previously reviewed by the planning department and the evaluation before it was issued in 2012. it is from the district and it wouldn't interfere with any of the districts views within the historic district. the department found it will serve as the surrounding psychic line this is characterized by the district is area.
2:04 pm
it was mitigated for the project and in accordance with the california environmental quality act sequa. as the proposed project is directly adjacent to the historic property or resource within the ap e but within the boundaries or boundaries there is no potential for the project to have an adverse effect on the site. in the report before you the design of the property project is sensitive to the district that retains the integrity of the project. the project is inconsistent with the sandy for and as it relates to new construction adjacent to historic properties. in addition 9 archaeology consensus also concluded that the project has any prehistoric
2:05 pm
deposits and there's a low sensitive at the for the resource to be provided in the resource code. with that, i conclude my staff report and representatives which the project are here to answer questions. i'm available for any questions you have >> thank you does the sponsor have a presentation? yeah. thank you
2:06 pm
>> the architect unusually does that that are i'm mark i'm oh, great, thank you. principle emerald fund we're the developers in the project. the project was entitled in may of, 2013. we are getting and applying for hud insured construction loan it's part of the hud process that's why we're here today. first a little bit of background about the project. does it don't anythi - do anyth
2:07 pm
>> the project is at the northwest corner it's a surface parking lotful from the civic auditorium it's a 1 hundred 13 story building. we've spent a lot of time modifying the design and it start out as a more than building with feedback from the planning department we at more and more structural details. this is what it looks like from if you're standing in front of the city hall looking at the building this is the most important shot from a historic prospective. in your ballots we've got a couple of pages on historic
2:08 pm
details showing how we've pulled different elements from the neighboring building so i'll leave this one up. there's a clafl horizontal facade 3 story base director ram was interested in that. a cord that wraps around the building. we had glass in the corners so we put in masonry. metal accents to pick up the metal railings. we had the two-story facade rhythm we had balconies on every floor. the promise has been reviewed historically a number of times. originally at hr e a was pled to
2:09 pm
november, 2012. j rp found the promise is capable with the district and the project would not result in a significant impact to the historic area. in december of 2012 this was wrapped into the mitigated deck this was accepted in may, 2013. at the same hearing we got project approvals. none of it was migrated. now for section 106 we went back to the consultants and asked for more detailed report it's in your packet pardon me they found it the sensitive and capable with the districts historic terltz, features and size and
2:10 pm
scales my massing. the proposed project will not diminish an indirect adverse effect to the historic property. we request that you agree with j rps historically findings and it will not have an audioversus impact on the historic properties within the area thank you >> thank you, commissioners any questions from staff or the sponsor? > >>. seeing none, >> commissioner hyland. >> i guess it's unrelated. >> i do have one planning question. residential on the ground floor?
2:11 pm
i didn't know that was even leading there >> certainly it's legal. we had a similar concerns the concern was the retail is not worthwhile in this district so we make sure the ground floor was friendly so we have standards for example, either stoops or setbacks to make the ground floor work on at the urban street it's legal it's just a question of how to provide privacy and pedestrian comfort on the ground floor >> it's a concern it feels like an encampment spot. you don't have action coming in and out of the door >> their directly walk up?
2:12 pm
>> yes. two on polk and two on hayes. we have a lobby and a leasing office on the corner so there's a lot of activity >> commissioner pearlman. >> are why do you think there won't be a retail access there. with the number of people living there and like the triple a building and the coffee 0 shop another starbuck's a coffee shop it would be an ideal place >> it's a question of where to put the retail. not every street can accommodate the retail. i think the feeling is this is a quieter street that wouldn't necessarily support that much
2:13 pm
retail. you know, mark can testify to this we hoped the corner might be able to support this and they felt this was a good place for the lobby >> we actually have 3 projects going on with 1 hundred van ness and 3 hundred i won't tell of retail but we know there's a butch of retail brokers and you're not going to create a new hayes valley so they recommended all on van ness and a third of the way on hayes. >> you said the name of the building i forgot the name of the building it's a gray - >> 70 very soon necessary. >> no, no not on van ness. >> the building it also doesn't have retail they struggled with
2:14 pm
the issue they have a gym on the steck second level. >> there's a number of new people coming in there. >> i think with all the glass on the corner with the loish lobby that will help out. and just so i know what are redoing - what codify gait are we going to do with the residential unit to so didn't look like a gate >> it gets to pick up the balconies. >> maybe another material that can be used. i know we were going off track but having residential on the ground floors. right over here. >> it's welcoming and picks up
2:15 pm
the metal railing from below its not liquor a wall it's inviting. >> those are the roinldz their 3 feet above the ground floor you walk up 3 steps and a enter the unit that way. >> it's a polk entry. >> and i got a last comment on the base and having it almost look like big pieces of stone. i'd love to hear my fellow commissioners on this one. i'd rather see a modern flat material i like the different evasion on that what's the difference mr. freeway >> that was one of the requests of the presentation team is to articulate the kourz of the because of the building similar
2:16 pm
to those 150u7bd. >> they wanted to match the 150ur7bd buildings it fits in and acquit contextual. >> that's my only feeling i agree with gettingors horizontal elevation but that one plays a little bit too much. it should be totally delineated. >> tim fry it will be articulated in the contemporary materials but breaking up the manic of the because of the building in a more compatible fashion. >> commissioner hyland.
2:17 pm
>> just one question can we get into the parking spaces. we have the mode you would say but the outer most spaces at each end of the building can we get - >> planning asked that question we have had to show a radius of how cars get in driver's license it works. >> it's slightly tweaked from that that's the disappointments it's part of our building permit it gets into the logistics of it we got a few less spaces. one car share space >> yes. >> i thought they were required per unit. >> that's a question to staff. >> i'm sorry, i must be going -
2:18 pm
>> it changed the requirement. >> you thought it was one every 50 units or something. i thought that building should be three or four. i just worked on a project >> we'll meet the code. >> commissioner johns. >> i've watched that area of the civic center change and develop since fox plaza was built. and the thing has been starting with fox plaza one mistake one disaster after another. it started with the wind that fox plaza created and it made that part of the street awful but this is a real bright spot.
2:19 pm
it fits in so noisily it isn't a copy of anything that picks up hints what's really nice about the civic center that never seemed to have gotten finished. i know the big gray believe we were trying to talk about it doesn't do it. but this, you know, it almost remi reminds me how thrilled i was when the gas station at the corner of medical care gal stare and polk was taken down and 4 hundred mickal stare was built it countryside ought to be there for years. i had the same feeling when i looked at the drawings of this building. this finishes off that block in a way that the 4th called for
2:20 pm
some transition for that building and market street south of market. so i think they say that things you know that the camel is a horse destined by a committee this doesn't suffer from that. tights a role really nice solution and it moves the tranquility and grander of the civic center in a way that feeds into what's happening south of market. i support the building. it doesn't bother me at all there's a base on which the building sits >> thank you commissioner pearlman. >> i'm a big con transparence because i'm going to say this is like a program did care isn't
2:21 pm
that a two humble camel. everybody has a finger in it and there's a little bit of everything. i know we're not to do a design review but the commentary the page in the report it seems like a huge stretch especially all the classic building are symmetrical and there's this big stroip there's no regularity. there's this strong regularity and portion of wall to do with bothvesical and horizontally. so i miss that here. and then i agree i liquor the because the separation of the composition. i feel like the columns on the
2:22 pm
base are spinly as above. if those columns were fatter in the bias portion it would have some mass which is what the base did and the building gets a little bit lighter there. it doesn't feel like it flingsz a base to a shaft. i certainly get what you're trying to do and again, it's a residential believe. so me those windows are horizontal and the window in other buildings are vertical. so an analysis you can draw lines but i don't believe there's the kind of strength and relationship you're describing. in terms of would i support and vote for this? sure it's a
2:23 pm
fairly elegant building. i don't think it responds to the civic center in the way it's described in the text i think there's some things that don't relate. i disagree about the retail >> commissioner johns. >> i'm trying to become a staff member here and if i were a staff member listening to the comments what would i recommend. what i'm hearing and what i think - what i'm impressed with the is the work to develop the working in the district. i think overall it does a good job first year there's been some
2:24 pm
comments related to whether you like the building individually as one idea which to me is not necessarily important for what our job is but to look at it and the only thing i've heard that can go in a letter that talks about the vertical lines in here. i'm not sure >> it's the lines - >> it sound like it would go to a change but that's the only thing i've heard so far. what comments do you have i'm trying to help staff >> thank you, mr. freeway. >> i just wanted to reiterate what commissioner johns was saying and narrow down the comments and clarify the section
2:25 pm
1067 review is to convey to the federal government whether there's an adverse effect on the adjacent landmark. i'd recommend if you have more general comments if there is or not, in fact, an effect and if you have a design comment for the second part of the letter. that maybe the way for parks service and hud to get where our discussions are going >> okay commissioner wolfram. >> i don't think it has combakdz on the civic center i think there are enough people commenting on this and our additional comments are not going to help the design. it sound likes it's gone through
2:26 pm
many impacts >> i'm not sure amongst all of us we'll come to agreement. >> i have to jump in and agree here we'll keep this short if we agree. commissioner johns >> well, i'd prefer the letter there are no adverse but i have feelings in the other directions. the other thing you made a very go comment and in a way it relates to something that came up the architecture review committee and does occasionally come up here. there's entirely two which and you also made commissioner wolfram this thing entirely too much over selling of those projects. their codify like the pr
2:27 pm
department what could he say about this hinge and doesn't that windowpane role embody the even if sister and after awhile you'll all think it's all to be disbelieved. i listened to you earlier and it does sometimes get a little bit outlandish >> why do we go to public comment and b.c. and settle our idea. any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. and back to you, commissioners. . commissioner wolfram >> i move we write a letter we
2:28 pm
reviewed this project and don't see any adverse impacts for our district. >> i second that. >> thank you. >> commissioners on that motion to direct staff to write a letter. commissioner hyland. commissioner johnck s commissioner johns. commissioner johnck. commissioner wolfram and president hasz. so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 7 to zero >> we'll take
2:29 pm
2:30 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on